Indexing information and the signal to noise ratio
posted some thoughts on wikipedia and the idea of judging whether or not an article should be allowed based on some notion of significance. Thoughts?
5 thoughts on “Indexing information and the signal to noise ratio”
Well, I think there should be -some- sort of significance to an article. But it’s a hard line to draw about what is and isn’t significant. The example from that post, about the band that buddies formed that broke up three weeks later, is insignificant. Unless one of those buddies one day goes on to be a member of a hugely popular band. And then it’s only significant as a note in a larger entry.
I haven’t looked into how Wikipedia judges articles for significance now. I do know I like Wikipedia and have been sucked into it for hours at a time, going from link to link to link. A lot of that information is fairly obscure, but it’s also interesting. It’s a hard call, no matter what.
Damn straight. Part of what makes Wikipedia so awesome is the potentially unlimited bandwidth. The web as a whole started out of idiotic things like the ones described in the article. I’d rather have people learn about how to post, and how to use wikipedia’s took in a low-impact area. Wikipedia never claimed to be *important* after all.
Leave wikipedia alone, definitely. Its rhyzomic nature would be diminished if there were a judging system. Instead of worrying about the build-up of dross, browsers should embrace the “productivity of being” (cf. the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze).
I routinely use wikipedia to look up pop music acts I am unfamiliar with.
It helps me keep my finger on the pulse of the youth of today
I mean, it helps me actually know what people are talking about when they make pop-culture references.
Well, I think there should be -some- sort of significance to an article. But it’s a hard line to draw about what is and isn’t significant. The example from that post, about the band that buddies formed that broke up three weeks later, is insignificant. Unless one of those buddies one day goes on to be a member of a hugely popular band. And then it’s only significant as a note in a larger entry.
I haven’t looked into how Wikipedia judges articles for significance now. I do know I like Wikipedia and have been sucked into it for hours at a time, going from link to link to link. A lot of that information is fairly obscure, but it’s also interesting. It’s a hard call, no matter what.
Eh, I say leave it all in as long as it’s accurate and unbiased. People won’t experience it (noise) unless they’re looking for it.
The existence of the Goatse article doesn’t make the Pope article any less credible.
Damn straight. Part of what makes Wikipedia so awesome is the potentially unlimited bandwidth. The web as a whole started out of idiotic things like the ones described in the article. I’d rather have people learn about how to post, and how to use wikipedia’s took in a low-impact area. Wikipedia never claimed to be *important* after all.
Leave wikipedia alone, definitely. Its rhyzomic nature would be diminished if there were a judging system. Instead of worrying about the build-up of dross, browsers should embrace the “productivity of being” (cf. the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze).
I routinely use wikipedia to look up pop music acts I am unfamiliar with.
It helps me keep my finger on the pulse of the youth of todayI mean, it helps me actually know what people are talking about when they make pop-culture references.